We Have Fully Discharged Our Evidential Burden—Addison

Lead Counsel for the petitioners in the election petition case, Philip Addison has stressed that the petitioners, contrary to opinions expressed by the respondents, have discharged the evidential burden placed upon them.

According to him, his side has proven over the course of the hearing of the case, that the 2012 presidential election was compromised and that there was no mix up in the evidence provided.

Lawyers for the petitioners, President Mahama, the Electoral Commission (EC) and the National Democratic Congress faced the nine-member Supreme Court panel of judges hearing the presidential election petition case, to answer questions and clarify issues that may have arisen from their evidence and or addresses.

They have also explained some of the issues they raised on behalf of their clients during the hearing of the petition which lasted four months.

The nine-member panel, presided over by Mr Justice William Atuguba, has Mr Justice Julius Ansah, Mrs Justice Sophia Adinyira, Ms Justice Rose Constance Owusu, Mr Justice Jones Dotse, Mr Justice Anin Yeboah, Mr Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, Mr Justice N. S. Gbadegbe and Mrs Justice Vida Akoto-Bamfo, as members.

The issues before the court for determination are allegations of persons being allowed to vote without undergoing biometric verification, over-voting, some presiding officers not signing pink sheets (statement of poll and declaration of results forms for the office of President) and some pink sheets having duplicated serial numbers.

On his part Tsatsu Tsikata has maintained that the petitioners' constant reference to their 'preferred set' [of exhibits] was meaningless. In his opinion, there is complete confusion in the exhibits that have been filed by the petitioners.

Counsel for the first respondent, Tony Lithur, has also indicated that "the constitutional right of a voter kicks in when an individual is identified in the register as a voter," after several minutes of banter with the President of the panel of judges.

"There is no proof by the petitioners that anybody voted without biometric verification."

He has also noted finger print verification was not the only way of biometrically identifying a qualified voter.

Judgement Date
After seeking the necessary clarifications from the lawyers, the court is expected to announce a definite date to deliver its judgement in the petition which is calling for the annulment of 3,931,339 votes at 10,119 polling stations because of gross and widespread irregularities alleged by the petitioners.

Regulation 69 C (4) of the Supreme Court Amendment Rules, 2012, (CI 74) indicates that judgement should be delivered in a presidential election petition 15 days after the close of the case.